Menu

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies

When I first began writing on SoSuave over a decade ago I used to get into what I consider now some fairly predictable arguments about monogamy. It was an interesting time since it was around then I was getting into some heated arguments in my behavioral psychology classes in college.

I had just written what would later become my essay, There is no One and a good majority of my classmates and all of my teachers but one were less than accepting of the theory. I anticipated most of the women in those classes would be upset – bear in mind this was around 2001-02 and the Red Pill was yet to be a thing – what I was surprised by was how many men became hostile by my having challenged the soulmate myth.

I got a lot of the same flack from women then that I get from uninitiated women when they read my work now; “Aren’t you married? Isn’t she your soulmate? Don’t you believe in love? You must’ve got burned pretty bad at some time Mr. Hateful.” Those were and are what I expect because they’re the easy subroutine responses a Blue Pill ego needs to protect itself with. There was a time I probably would’ve mouthed the same. That’s how the conditioning works; it provides us with what we think ought to be ‘obvious’ to anyone. And at the same time, we feel good for ‘defying the odds’ and believing in what we take for granted, or common sense.

This is how deep the subconscious need for assuring our genetic heritage goes. For women this assurance is about optimal Hypergamy, for men, it’s about assurances of paternity. In either case, we need to believe that we will reproduce, and so much so that we will attribute some supernatural influence to the process of doing so. The fulfillment of your own sexuality is nothing less than your battle for existence, and on some level, your subconscious understands this. Thus, for the more religious-minded it gets attributed to fate and faith, whereas for the more secular-minded it’s about the romanticized notion of a soulmate.

Monogamy & ONEitis

I contemplated the idea of ONEitis for a long time back then. I’d most certainly been through it more than once, even with the BPD ex-girlfriend. By then I understood first hand how the belief absorbs a Beta and how it is an essential element, effectively a religion, for a Blue Pill life experience. I didn’t realize it then, but I was maturing into a real valuation of myself and I had the benefit of some real-world experiences with the nature of women to interpret and contrast what I was learning then.

Honestly, I had never even encountered the term ‘ONEitis’ prior to my SoSuave forum days. I referred to the soulmate myth in my writing as best I could, but it wasn’t until (I suppose) Mystery had coined the term. Outside the ‘sphere people got genuinely upset with me when I defined it for them. Back then I attributed this to having their ego-investment challenged, and while that’s part of it, today I believe there’s more to it than this.

The old social contracts that constituted what I call the Old Set of Books meant a lot in respect to how the social orders prior to the sexual revolution were maintained. That structuring required an upbringing that taught men and women what their respective roles were, and those roles primarily centered on a lifetime arrangement of pair bonding.

It’s interesting to note that the popular theory amongst evolutionary anthropologists is that modern monogamous culture has only been around for just 1,000 years. Needless to say, it’s a very unpopular opinion that human beings are in fact predisposed to polyamory / polygyny and monogamy is a social adaptation (a necessary one) with the purpose of curbing the worst consequences of that nature. We want to believe that monogamy is our nature and our more feral impulses are spandrels and inconveniences to that nature. We like the sound of humans having evolved past our innate proclivities to the point that they are secondary rather than accepting them as fundamental parts of who we really are.

Women, in particular, are far more invested in promoting the idea of ‘natural’ monogamy since it is their sex that bears the cost of reproductive investments. Even the hint of men acknowledging their ‘selfish gene’ nature gets equated with a license to cheat on women. This is an interesting conflict for women who are increasingly accepting (if not outright flaunting) of Open Hypergamy.

I’ve attempted in past essays to address exactly this duplicity women have to rationalize with themselves. The Preventive Medicine book and posts outline the conflict and how women internalize and ‘hamsterize’ the need to be both Hypergamously selective, but to also prioritize long-term security at various stages of their lives. Ultimately a woman’s position on monogamy is ruled by how she balances her present Alpha Fucks with her future prospects of Beta Bucks.

Seed and Need

It might be that women would rather share a confirmed Alpha with other women than be saddled with a faithful Beta, but that’s not to say that necessity doesn’t eventually compel women to settle for monogamy with a dutiful Beta. In either respect, the onus of sustained, faithful monogamy is always a responsibility placed upon men. The indignation that comes from even the suspicions of a man’s “straying”, a wandering eye, or preplanned infidelity is one of the most delicious sensations a woman can feel. Women will create syndicated talk shows just to commiserate around that indignation.

It’s important to also contrast this with the socialization efforts to make women both victims and blameless. As I mention in the last post, men who lack the appreciation of the necessity to prepare for a sustained monogamy with a woman are considered ‘kidults’ or prolonging their adolescence. They are shamed for not meeting women’s definition of being mature; that definition is always one that centers on the idea that men ought to center their lives around being better-than-deserved, faithful, monogamous potentials for women’s long-term security and parental investment.

On the other hand, women are never subject to any qualifications like this. In fact, they are held in higher regard for bucking the system and staying faithful to themselves by never marrying or even aborting children along the way to do so. So once again, we return to the socialization effort necessary to absolve women of the consequences that the conflict Hypergamy poses to them – they become both victims and blameless in confronting a monogamy they expect from men, but are somehow exempt from when it’s inconvenient.

Pair Bonding

Arguably, pair bonding has been a primary adaptation for us that has been species-beneficial. It’s fairly obvious that humans’ capacity for both intra- and inter-sexual cooperation has made us the apex species on the planet. However, the Feminine Imperative’s primary social impetus of making Hypergamy the defining order of (ideally) all cultures is in direct conflict with this human cooperativity. A new order of open Hypergamy, based on female primacy (and the equalist importance of the individual), subverts the need for pair bonding. There is no need for intersexual interdependence (complementarity) when women are socialized and lauded for being self-satisfying, self-sufficient individuals.

Add to this the conditioning of unaccountable victimhood and/or the inherent blamelessness of women and you get an idea of where our social order is heading.

Both sex’s evolved sexual strategies operate counter to the demands of pair bonded monogamy. For millennia we’ve adapted social mechanisms to buffer for it (marriage, male protectionism of women, etc.), but the cardinal rule of sexual strategies still informs these institutions and practices:

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

In this respect, it is men who are expected to make the greater compromise due to an evolved sense of uncertainty about paternity and the social mandate to accommodate women’s sexual strategy.

The counter to this is that women have always borne the responsibility of parental investment if they chose a father poorly (or didn’t choose), but in our post-sexual revolution social order, the consequences of this responsibility have been virtually eliminated. In fact, those consequences are now viewed as evidence of women’s independent strength.

Even aborting a child is a source of pride now.

Men bear the greater effect of compromising their sexual strategies to accommodate and resolve the strategy of women. When we account for the normalization of open Hypergamy, soft cuckoldry, and the legal resistance to paternity testing (ostensibly centering on the emotional wellbeing of the child in question) it is much clearer that men bear the most direct consequences for compromising their sexual imperatives.

From Warren Farrell’s book. Why Men are the Way They Are (h/t to SJF):

Why are men so afraid of commitment? Chapter 2 explained how most men’s primary fantasy is still, unfortunately, access to a number of beautiful women. For a man, commitment means giving up this fantasy. Most women’s primary fantasy is a relationship with one man who either provides economic security or is on his way to doing so (he has “potential”). For a woman, commitment to this type of man means achieving this fantasy. So commitment often means that a woman achieves her primary fantasy, while a man gives his up. — P.150

Men who “won’t commit” are often condemned for treating women as objects — hopping from one beautiful woman to the next. Many men hop. But the hopping is not necessarily objectifying. Men who “hop from one beautiful woman to another” are usually looking for what they could not find at the last hop: good communication, shared values, good chemistry. — P.153

The meaning of commitment changed for men between the mid-sixties and the mid-eighties. Commitment used to be the certain route to sex and love, and to someone to care for the children and the house and fulfill the “family man image.” Now men feel less as if they need to marry for sex; they are more aware that housework can be hired out and that restaurants serve meals; they are less trapped by family-man image motivation, including the feeling that they must have children. Increasingly, that leaves men’s main reason to commit the hope of a woman to love. — P.159

Dr. Farrell is still fundamentally trapped in a Blue Pill perspective because he still clings to the validity of the old order books/rules, and the willfully ignorant hope that women will rationally consider men’s sexual imperatives as being as valid as their own.

That said, Farrell’s was the germ of the idea I had for the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, he just didn’t go far enough because he was (and still is) stuck in Blue Pill idealistic hopes of monogamy. Bear in mind, Farrell’s book is based on his intrasexual understandings of everything leading up to its publication in 1986, however, this does give us some insight into how the old order evolved its approach to monogamy then into an open, socially accepted form of Hypergamy now.

He relies on the old trope that men are afraid of commitment by reasoning that men only want to fulfill a fantasy of unlimited access to unlimited sexuality – all shallow, all superficial, while women’s priority of commitment is correct, selfless, valid and blameless. Farrell also reveals his Blue Pill conditioning by making the presumption that men only Game women in the hope that they’ll find a unicorn, and they’re endlessly fucking women for no other reason than to find a woman with good communication, shared values, good chemistry, etc.

I sincerely doubt that even in the mid 8os this was the case for men not want to commit to a woman, or essentially compromise his sexual strategy to accommodate that of women’s. Farrell never came to terms with dual nature of women’s sexual strategy and how it motivates women over time because he believes men and women have, fundamentally, the same concept of love and mutually shared end-goals.

Mandates & Responses

In the decades since this publication, the normalization and legal mandates that ensure men will (by force if necessary) comply with this compromise is something I doubt Farrell could’ve ever predicted. Legal aspects, social aspects, that used to be a source of women stigmatization about this compromise have all been swept away or normalized, if not converted to some redefined source of supposed strength. Abortion rights, single parenting (almost exclusively the domain of women), postponing birth, careerism, freezing women’s eggs, sperm banks, never-marrying, body fat acceptance and many more aspects are all accepted in the name of strong independence® for women.

Virtually anything that might’ve been a source of regret, shame, or stigmatization in the old order is dismissed or repurposed to elevate women, but what most men never grasp (certainly not Dr. Farrell) is that all of these normalizations were and are potential downsides to a woman’s Hypergamous decisions.

MGTOW/PUA/ The Red Pill, are all the deductive responses to this normalization, but also, they’re a response to the proposition of the compromise that the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies presents to men in today’s sexual marketplace.

In all of these ‘movements’ the fundamental, central truth is that they all run counter to the presumption that men must compromise (or abandon) their sexual imperatives – long or short term. Thus, these ideologies and praxeologies have the effect of challenging or removing some of the total control of Hypergamy women now have mandated to them. Even just the concepts of MGTOW/PUA/TRP are equatable to removing this control.

However, it is still undeniable that there is a necessity for monogamy (even if it’s just temporary) or some iteration of pair bonding that ensures men and women raise healthier, stronger, better-developed children. We are still social animals and, despite what equalism espouses, we are different yet complementary and interdependent with one another. Mutual cooperation, tribalism, monogamy and even small-scale polygamy have been beneficial social adaptations for us.

Gynocentrism and the respondent efforts against it defeat this complementary cooperative need.

Gynocentrism / egalitarianism defeat this cooperation in its insistence that equalism, self-apart independence, and homogeny ought to be society’s collective mental point of origin in place of the application of differing strengths to differing weaknesses.

So we come to an impasse then. It’s likely it will require a traumatic social event to reset or redefine the terms of our present social contract to ever make monogamy a worthwhile compromise for men again. We can also contrast this ‘raw deal’ compromise against the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. It’s easy to think women simply have no need of men when their long-term security is virtually assured today, but fem-centrism goes beyond just separating the sexes by need. It wasn’t enough to just separate male and female cooperation, fem-centrism has made men’s compromise so bad that they must be made to despise their sex altogether. Men had to be made not only to accept their downside compromise but to feel ashamed for even thinking not to.

Post navigation

560 comments

As Farrell’s ideas sparked an idea in you, combining with what you’d seen around you, so your There Is No One essay put words to a conclusion I was arriving at just before discovering your blog (and that article came a scant few months before I wandered in). Now I had coherent thought to attach to my coalescing ideas, couched in some very lucid and reasonable (even rational, one might say) words. That simple reassurance that I was on the right track has meant a lot in the past few years.

I’ve nothing to add to the discussion, really, except thanks for having it to begin with.

Women live in what appears to be mental quantum states where the embody opposing elements at different times. This has most likely always been the case, however it has been much less overt than it is in present day. If we go back 250 years, I have no doubt that women were just as hypergamous, however nature necessitated less activity.

The downside of the cock carousel for women was the risk it posed to the ability to settle down with a dutiful beta. If we go back no more than 50 – 60 years with less developed contraceptives, no abortion, no morning after pill, and significant social stigma, this created a natural risk to balance the rewards that a woman receives from fully engaging in her sexual strategy.

However, at present day, the social stigma is gone, and there are medical solutions that remove all risk of the female choice to fully engage her sexual strategy of AF/BB.

From the perspective of male sexual strategy, no real changes have taken place. There is still social shaming and “man up” if you get a girl pregnant, you will be liable for child support even if she lied about birth control or impregnated herself with leftovers from a condom. In addition, the recent onslaught of Title IX and rape accusations means additional risk has been added for the male sexual strategy.

Perhaps monogamy is only about 1,000 years old because before then, young men died at a very high rate do to intertribal conflicts. Young men were the protectors of their society. Polygamy is required under those conditions. A society that could not maximize the production of cannon fodder was at an increased risk of being rubbed out by those societies that could.

My conclusion 2 years after taking the red pill, and seeing it’s truths reflected in the behavior of and interactions with female friends, colleagues and family members, including my wife and mother:

All women, no exception, are lying manipulating, self-centered, disloyal cheating whores. Every single one. They only differ in their place on bell curve of each of these traits, but this is what defines them. I’ve used this knowledge to my advantage both in my personal and professional life. What a relief it has been to learn this.

I wonder sometimes how much of this is just our civilization coddling us to the point where most people lose a taste for doing hard things.

Creating a serially monogamous circumstance is natural and easy for a woman to do, and she can use it to key into the dominant cultural narrative that pretends lifelong monogamy still exists in a meaningful fashion.

But a serially monogamous relationship is NOT natural for a man from the beginning. This makes it hard for him to do. As such, a great deal of energy needs to be spent conditioning him to do it anyways.

A bit of manipulation of his temporary pair-bonding circuits (which only seem to activate when in a subservient, beta mode, necessitating that he be put in a subservient position besides) cements the deal, making him crazy about her for as long as she still has some affection he values that she can still give or take away at whim – the carrot and stick.

Hmm, that’s kinda a grim lens. More so that @Rollo’s more lucid one. But I think it’s a valid angle.

They cannot be changed, they can only he controlled, up to a point. Religion, social rules, Patriarchy were all invented to control female sexuality, in that the feminists are right. But this I of course a good thing from the male perspective and from the perspective of wider civilization. As much as I appreciate and use Game, the contemporary approach to control and benefit from female sexuality, I don’t see how it makes for a robust cohesive society. The sugar babies post made me realize: The end state of unchecked female sexuality and feminism is a society of hookers and johns. Ironic, hilarious and depressing at the same time

Rollo, I’m curious to know is there a female blogger like yourself out there that agrees with your view point and writes on similar red pill praxeology? I appreciate the truth you share and I know you read the sentiments enough times but it’s rough and lonesome living in the real world in which 90% of people it seems willfully ignore the truths you share…most women are like clueless clones, blinded by solipsism and almost no way to break through. Where do guys even find the motivation to love and makes sacrifices for them? By the way Rollo please e-mail me a link to your audio book by Sam Botta. Thanks.

The impasse gets more severe as you focus on younger demographics. For all the caterwauling about the Frat Boy Louts and Lad Culture, today’s college and high school men are now the Soft Boyss. They have truly absorbed the Open Hypergamy Blue Pill praxeology as a way of life. The Sandbergians do not comprehend how fully they have achieved what is likely to be a long-lasting victory. Now they have the men they claimed to want: sweet-tempered Soft Boy SNAG’s who will not approach and will not ask for dates because it is uncouth, and besides they might get expelled for approaching. Dating is dead. Hookups will continue, at the alpha stratum. 80/20 and all that. But recent data suggests nowhere near as much hooking up is happening as you think you see reported. In reality a whole lot of jet boyz and jet girlz aren’t getting jiggy at all. You just don’t see their stories, since they won’t tell them, there’s nothing to tell.

The Soft Boys are told over and over they are not needed – she don’t need no man – so they listen, they agree and drop out – of college, of family foundation, of marriage. Get by on less, and cherish experiences. Getting the horn? Dial up the porn. Ridicule us Soft Boys enough, and we get the message. We don’t go where we’re told we’re not wanted; we aren’t mind readers, we suck at it, we’re not getting better at it. Proficiency in doubleplus-goodthink is no substitute. Since we’re going to be shamed no matter what we do, we might as well do what we like.

More and more women might be increasingly dismayed at the results their culture has generated, finding the Soft Boys to be uninspired whiners and wieners. They can cluck, and throw shame, but they can’t unbreak the vase.

Only the PUAs and apex alphas, few as they are, will have the insight how a woman who outwardly is saying to go away might be signaling “let’s fuck”.

To the extent marriage survives, it will be as an UMC indulgence. Only they can afford it, and have at least some concept of sticking with it, at least for a while. Otherwise, monogamy will crater, complementary parenting is fucked, and kids will have to raise themselves, finding mentors where they can if they are lucky enough. As for us, we will throw money at our kids (the ones we know of), lock ourselves in with Pornhub, and only venture outside for takeout Chipotle, artisanal pizza and beer, and Pokémon Go quests.

“…most women are like clueless clones, blinded by solipsism and almost no way to break through. Where do guys even find the motivation to love and makes sacrifices for them?”

You cannot use Red Pill knowledge to achieve Blue Pill goals.

JAFYK assumes that men ought to love idealistically, which isn’t realistic. Men must love in a way that benefits them…protect their children, their mate(s), keep their options open…”love the one you’re with”

Men must not expect women to think and behave like men…JAFYK assumes that men can only love women who aren’t solipsistic or “clueless” according to men’s way of thinking…this is unrealistic.

All women, no exception, are lying manipulating, self-centered, disloyal cheating whores. Every single one. They only differ in their place on bell curve of each of these traits

I mean, dogs will shit all over the floor if you don’t train them not to. Men fight and kill each other all the time. You can look at the situation of women as “Man, look at all these WHORES. Fuck you.” Or you can understand what their nature is like, and how things work from their perspective.

A woman doesn’t go “I’m going to go take that dude’s dick up my ass and then eat the shit off his dick JUST to piss off little beta jimmy over there.” She just does it because, in the moment, that feels right. Its the same as with a child. There’s generally no malice in what they do, they just hop around from emotion to emotion.

A child doesn’t write all over the walls with permanent marker to go “Haha. Take THAT parents.” The kid goes “Oooh. I love to draw. I love fuzzy bunnies. So I am going to draw fuzzy bunnies ALL OVER THE WALL. Yay fuzzy bunnies.” Much in the same way a girl goes to a concert and goes “Yay, loud noises. Yay music. This is FUN FUN FUN. Ohh, the band member likes me, this is exciting” and then gets steamrolled by the whole band lol. Its just fun and she’s riding on those emotions.

Again though, no malice in here. She’s not trying to hurt anyone. She’s not trying to destroy society.

So I think all of these “I HATE THOSE WHORES” mentality is just a bad mindset, in the same way that thinking “I HATE ALL THOSE SNOT NOSED KIDS” is a bad mindset too. You have to think about WHY they are like that.

And it isn’t all roses for girls. As soon as you hit puberty, you are at your peak. And then, before you know it, you hit the wall and psssh. All your great sexual experiences are behind you. You now have to get by on something other than your looks, but unlike, say, Steve in accounting, you can’t really get any better. Steve could master game and slay it with chicks, even if he is an old fart. Sally the post wall bitch is always going to be post wall. Maybe she gets a better attitude in life, maybe she wins the lotto, but she’s always going to be an old chick from then on.

You’ll just get more from life from A) accepting that things are as they are (which, I get,you understand it, but there is a lot of hate in how you describe things) and B) understand WHY they are like that.

Its like this whole cops and black shit. Theres no black and white. Some cops are shitty and abuse blacks and kill innocent people for no reason. But some blacks are dipshit thugs who kill honorable officers who dedicated their lives to helping others. There are nuances to these things.

Lions who rip baby elephants to pieces aren’t evil, they are just acting on instinct. A kid who draws all over the wall is just acting on instinct. A girl who gets gangbanged by a band is just acting on instinct.

Lol, girls aren’t evil.

I feel, sometimes, that its like we are back in kindergartner with all this “Eeeww girls have cooties. NO GIRLS ALLOWED.”

@Black Label

The downside of the cock carousel for women was the risk it posed to the ability to settle down with a dutiful beta. If we go back no more than 50 – 60 years with less developed contraceptives, no abortion, no morning after pill, and significant social stigma, this created a natural risk to balance the rewards that a woman receives from fully engaging in her sexual strategy.

yaya. For me though, I think the biggest game changer is that women are REWARDED for slutting it up. Like, they get social APPROVAL for doing it. Especially stuff, like rollo mentioned, of being PROUD of, and REWARDED for, aborting a baby. Hard to fathom.

I think you can still have a society that is fairly liberal that has the necessary restraint on hypergamy JUST from NOT rewarding girls for sleeping around and NOT degrading masculinity. Women naturally have ASD, so they will retrain themselves somewhat (read: they’ll keep their sexuality more on the DL, and not get as carried away as they do today) and men will punish the really bad ones by not supporting them or marrying them. Hell, just redoing the divorce laws to be more equitable would be a huge change.

I think that this more recent push to make things like sugar babies social acceptable is going to have huge ramifications. Like with the FRAs. I think half the reason that girls like the princeton girl (accused that swimmer guy) lied that they were raped is just so they can get the attention from playing the victim card. Things like rape should be a more personal affair. I don’t think girls should be SHAMED for being raped (when it legit happens). It just should be something that you don’t really broadcast.

Again, though, REWARDING woman for being sexual plus DEGRADING men is the key thing that put us in our present situation. Left to their own devices, men and women will fall back to their default roles of dominant males, submissive women.

@JAFYK

Rollo, I’m curious to know is there a female blogger like yourself out there that agrees with your view point and writes on similar red pill praxeology?

Judgy Bitch

but I mean, she’s still a chick lol

@culum @forge

Good analogy! Works on multiple levels.

Yeah, to expand on the rock climbing example.

Even if you see the tiny footholds (or in this case, fingerholds lol), that doesn’t mean just anyone can use them. Free climbers have trained extensively, building up muscles, building up resistance to pain, learning EXACTLY how to balance themselves so that they can use those little fingerholds. The same way an expert PUA can escalate on the tiniest of IOIs, but a newb couldn’t . . . even if he somehow noticed those tiny IOIs.

You also have only so much energy. You have only so much time to scale the mountain. You MIGHT be able to find those tiny fingerholds to scale the sheer cliff . . . but even if you could somehow use them . . . you probably wouldn’t find them quickly enough. An expert PUA likewise is hypersensitive to any and all IOIs, no matter how subtle, and can BOOM BOOM BOOM escalate on a whole bunch of tiny IOIs and pull the girl in just a moment, whereas most guys would take several minutes to notice just one greenlight IOI (if they did at all)

Last thing, cuz you could write a whole series of articles on this metaphor lol, is that there are different kinds of rock faces. Some are sheer. Some are cracks you can wedge yourself between. Some twist up and go nearly horizontal. Some are made from granite, some from limestone. Sometimes its sunny, sometimes its rainy.

Climbing rocks has the same basic pattern (move from foothold to foothold until you scale it), but the details vary depending on the specific rock face. Likewise, you have to calibrate your game to your girl. A shy asian schoolgirl requires different approach than a bitchy russian model who’s the hottest chick (and KNOWS it) in a happening nightclub. And the approach you choose for those girls will have to be tweaked depending on her current mood, her friends, any orbiters or AMOGs, if you take her to a different location, and how YOUR mood and confidence shifts. Just as a climber has to adjust to changing weather conditions and rock types as they climb.

@j @sentient

only blazed through those vids, but all good for a basic overview of daygaming.

Isn’t this GLL guy who yareally and others were discounting? Becuase I agree. Not that he can’t pull chicks — he can — but that his game isn’t the best lol. Now, I like it (and this may be sentient’s point) that it really doesn’t take anymore that holding frame to pull girls in bookstores (although, I’d argue that level of frame takes a bit to establish).

Buuut. Like he really didn’t spike BT much. With the texan girl, I saw lots of opportunites to sexualize and tease. Like when she said she read vigil — NERD! Lol, but then I would have gone into asking her WHY she read virgil and use that as a qualification routine. Because, really, how many girls read virgil?

Also, with her friends. Don’t remember the details, but pretty much anytime a girl says something about waiting for friends or something along those lines, I would say something like

“Yeah. They just up and ditched you. They’re getting shitfaced. Super drunk right now. And that one friend you have that turns into a raging lesbo when she drinks, yeah, she’s making out with a bunch of chicks now. In fact, I bet they are having a crazy steamy hot lesbian orgy right now. Like even your straight friends just went “You know what, I don’t usually do this, but Sally’s ass looks really nice and Megan has some suuuupper huge tits, so fuck it. I’m going to go eat out a bunch of chicks now.” And they all just left you out of that crazy awesome sex. Can you believe that? Some friends they are. We’ll have to get back at them somehow.” and laser

Obviously, needs calibration for the situ, but that’s the general outline. Just an easy way to drop in some sexual stuff that is about sex IN GENERAL, and not about sex WITH HER. So its better, especially in daygame. That said, if she responds well, you can go more with the “we’ll have to get back at them somehow” and tease her about how you and her are going to top her friends crazy orgy.

Anyway, guy with the latina did more. I liked the bonita thing, where he intentially called himself “beautiful” in spanish so the chick would say “no no, you’re HANDSOME”. And you see how she laughs and gets into him. Its clever since it kind of makes her tell him she is handsome — she’s naturally going to correct him on his mistake and say “nono, you’d be handsome (whatever that is in spanish, lol, don’t remember) not beautiful.” but just by calling him handsome, it gets her FEELING it.

Again, just breezed through the vids, maybe I missed more, but the latina guy seemed to do the best of spiking BT to have her stick with him, but not so much as to be uncalibrated for daygame. Where as GLL was just BARE minimum. No sexual stuff. It WORKS, but I just feel as soon as a friend pops by or some other obsticle interferes, she’s gonna piece out FAST. I think GLL could salvage it even if that happened, but why risk it, lol. Why not do more cold reads/teasing/innuendo to anchor her a bit more? And I think that is especially important for newbies because the GLL guy has decent frame . . . that a newb doesn’t, lol. So he’s prolly not going to be able to pull with as little as he did.

I don’t know any who are writing but my first GF taught me the rudiments of game. After a few years hanging out here I realize how rare that is – a female who understands her own psychology. That was back in ’62. Funny enough I was one of her plates. None the less the lessons were worth the price.

Women want kids the way men want sex. A barren woman is conceptually similar to a castrated man in this respect.

How women go about getting prime seed(to make kids) and resources( to raise said kids) is wholly dependent on the social and economic environment she’s in.

The social environment of The First Set of Books meant she had to marry to have kids,so that’s what women did. They didn’t do so because of some internal instinct for monogamy, any more then I have an internal instinct for paperwork when I file my taxes. Marriage is and always has been a means to an end for them.

Now that there’s the government and a social class of domesticated betas willing to literally wait on and for all women , it’s a free for all.

Some women still find it advantageous to marry the old fashioned way. Some dispense with that and decide banging criminals and living off the dole is their best option. Others mix both- bang the criminals behind hubbys back, or make hubby an aware cuck.

Every plate I’ve had is in some way polyamorous. These girls never have just “one man” in their lives. Even the “good girls” have that one ex they never fully leave out of their lives. When they refer to being “single” it’s not the same context at all as a male using the phrase. “Single” to women means “I can’t find a rich enough guy yet”. Part of the game for them is plating dudes without the Beta (hubby,bf etc) finding out. Many a woman caught cheating has tossed out a rape accusation to save face back home, for this reason.

Insofar as pair bonding goes; what’s love got to do with it? Last time I caught feelings for a woman I ejected from the dynamic.

It’s not about some sense of emotional underdevelopment; why should an aware man bother with cooperative pair bonding when sex is easier to get elsewhere from other women I’m not chemically bonded to -at a fraction of the risk emotionally-and families + kids legally belong to women anyways?

On the female side, love is a liability. Why commit to one guy- no matter how awesome he is- when there’s always a better guy around the corner? Feelings don’t pay bills, or change diapers, or build mansions.

All these social hijinks are in service to the almighty God Reproduction, in the form of every woman wanting the best kids and genetic lineage she can create.

The rest of society as men made it is merely a means to that end. We face the burden of adapting , knowing civilizations best days are accordingly behind us.

Men who “hop from one beautiful woman to another” are usually looking for what they could not find at the last hop: good communication, shared values, good chemistry.

Wrong – men are doing that because they can. The only chemistry I’m interested in is what takes place from the moment I slide my cock into her till I blow my load. Then it’s time to go look for the next one. I’ve been doing that since I was a teenager, and now at more than 50 I’ve had to change my strategy a bit, but the goal is the same. Fortunately, women still want to “experience” life when they are at their most attractive – and I an more than willing to help them do so.

No man with a brain would saddle himself with these women, they are great for a night, but that’s it. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something… All men should adopt the 4 F way of life, Find-em, Feel-em, Fuck-em, Forget-em…. That is the best strategy to happiness at least for a man – let the women do what they want, after I’m done with them I really couldn’t care less.

“So we come to an impasse then. It’s likely it will require a traumatic social event to reset or redefine the terms of our present social contract to ever make monogamy a worthwhile compromise for men again.”

I heartily agree. I don’t see how this will resolve peacefully. At some point the opposing sides in this conflict will refuse to stand down on some issue and they’ll finally have it out. The mentality by then will be “Damn be him that first cries, ‘Hold enough!'”

My only hope is that this event happens sooner rather than later so we can get it over with and move on.

“A woman doesn’t go “I’m going to go take that dude’s dick up my ass and then eat the shit off his dick JUST to piss off little beta jimmy over there.”

I stopped reading your text wall at this point because you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. I have met plenty of women are exactly like that. Seriously dude, you need to get out more often.

Warren Farrell was selling something anachronistic: Blue Pill sexual strategy. And Rollo was indicting him for that old, first set of books seen through a blue pill lens, while saying thanks dude for planting a seed of thought in him, Rollo. Farrell was trying to advocate for balancing mans/womens sexual strategy. Playing “fair” and going along willingly. That balance couldn’t possibly work for men going forward in the new world disorder, down the road.

And we all know how that balance is now in 2016.

Farrell was aware of men’s motivations, but didn’t know that real, actual Hypergamy was a FI strategy that would snowball down the mountain and that Game for men would be a Thing. Perhaps he viewed men’s sexual strategy well met by the old set of books.

But Farrell simply didn’t have enough forward thinking to 25 years in the future.

He used to be a feminist, but turned to men’s issues in 1993.

He later advocated for men, he just didn’t know that Game was a thing and and advocated for both men’s and women’s sexual strategies to succeed. Once again, the Old Set of Books. Try that today and you don’t get fulfillment. Or in your terms: It’s not worth it. The juice is not worth the squeeze.

This flies in the face of the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies.

From Wikipedia:

In his book, The Myth of Male Power, Farrell posits that men and women need to make an evolutionary shift from a focus on survival to a focus on a proper balance between survival and fulfillment.

The women’s movement, he claims, has led to the re-socialization of girls to become women who balance survival with fulfillment, but that no one has similarly re-socialized boys to become men who pursue that balance once they take on the responsibility of children. Thus, Farrell believes, boys and men are decades behind girls and women psychologically and socially, and increasingly behind women academically and economically. In Farrell’s recent presentations on this topic, he estimates that men are in 2011 where women were in 1961.

Farrell’s political solution is “neither a women’s movement blaming men nor a men’s movement blaming women, but a gender transition movement.” He defines a gender transition movement as one that fosters a transition from the rigid roles of our past to more flexible roles for the future.

Wow Rollo, it seems you are changing lately and coming around to what I’ve thought for awhile on things. Indeed: “For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.” Followed by the obvious conclusion that Gynocentrism has won this round and redefined the rules (second set of books) to favor them. Followed by “It’s likely it will require a traumatic social event to reset or redefine the terms of our present social contract to ever make monogamy a worthwhile compromise for men again.” So let me say … agreed. The obvious solution, of course, is to force the ultimate conflict to occur so that the rules can be re-defined to be either neutral or even better to favor men (doubtful). The sooner the redefinition, the better. And the way to do this is to go MGTOW en-mass. You’re short -> MGTOW, fat -> mgtow, broke -> mgtow, you been divorce-raped -> MGTOW … really what that means is that the 80% of society that are on the IGNORE scale of women … just punt, give up, and go MGTOW. If the Sphere wanted to get things back to “normal” or at least ACCEPTABLE they should be recommending that ALL MEN GO MGTOW IMMEDIATELY. That will force the issue. Just follow the logic train … it ain’t that hard …

Your recent post on Sugar Babies again echoed my sentiments. If the one advantage that you have in our current situation is that you do have some disposal income and you want hot pussy … then ante up. You got cash, there is a hot girl … hooker, escort, sugar baby, gold-diggin whore … out there for you. Vett well, ante up, and fuck hot pussy. It ain’t that hard: IF YOU GOT THE CASH. So play the hand you’re dealt … ain’t no shame in that.

Next thing you know, … Rollo … you are going to being agreeing with me on Alpha’s … or more accurate what most of the Manosphere believes to be true about Alpha’s and what the Sphere’s recommendations are. What the Sphere defines as Alpha .. is merely what gets a guy sex. Doesn’t mean he’s a decent human being. Doesn’t mean he’s doing what’s best for himself. Doesn’t mean he contributes to society. Doesn’t mean he has a mission. Most likely the dude is a fucked up in the head prick that most men would want to kick the shit out of. Why ? Because all the qualities of the “Alpha” that the Sphere so highly recommends are merely representations of the female nature. Women want “Alpha’s” because they think and act just like a woman … a strong man, with a dick, who’s head is so fucked up … he thinks like a woman. Yes, women seek in a man the qualities that they themselves embody. Delusional. Solipsistic. Selfish. Egotistical. What the Sphere says about how to become an Alpha and slay pussy is really wrong. For men. That advice is really about turning men into women (because that’s what women want)… just so they can get some pussy. What the Sphere OUGHT to be doing is teaching men how to be men. And given our current situation that advice ought to be … to ignore women, concentrate on yourselves, do what you want. Fuck women, fuck the system, lets do what we can to bring the current system down … so the rules can be redefined back to normalcy … whatever that means.

One quick follow up: actually women and their attitudes towards the fake Alphas isn’t so different from men’s … assuming we controlled the narrative. From a guys perspective … if you could define the perfect woman wouldn’t it be something like: a Victoria’s Secret Model … who lets me fuck her whenever I want, and likes to go to the local pub and drink beer with me and is a rabid fan of the same sports team that I root for !!! Basically .. the object of my sexual desire who thinks and act like me. That’s what the Sphere is telling men: look like the object of women’s desire (go to the gym, LIFT !!!!) and learn HOW TO THINK AND ACT LIKE A WOMAN. Do these things and you’ll get pussy.

if you could define the perfect woman wouldn’t it be something like: a Victoria’s Secret Model … who lets me fuck her whenever I want, and likes to go to the local pub and drink beer with me and is a rabid fan of the same sports team that I root for !!! Basically .. the object of my sexual desire who thinks and act like me.

well if you think and act like a beta… you think that a women lets you fuck her… and most of your issues flow from that kind of thinking…

“A woman doesn’t go “I’m going to go take that dude’s dick up my ass and then eat the shit off his dick JUST to piss off little beta jimmy over there.”

I stopped reading your text wall at this point because you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. I have met plenty of women are exactly like that. Seriously dude, you need to get out more often.

Yes yes. Late the hate flow through you

lol

Because every woman every second of every day is plotting and scheming to ruin men’s lives. The ONLY reason they have sex is so that they can film it and send it to every dude that ever loved them so they can go “Look at how EVIL and MANIPULATIVE I am. HEHEHEHEHEH!.”

Then they cackle and fly off on their broomsticks to meet with their coven of fellow evil devil women to dance naked under the moonlight and worship Satan.

Sometimes women DO go off to fuck dudes to piss off boyfriends . . . but that usually isn’t Johnny, the beta slub in marketing. She doesn’t even NOTICE him.

Generally speaking, yes, women WILL go out of their way to hurt men after they themselves have been hurt by men (or they FEEL they have been hurt by men).

What happens in something like this. After a lifetime of getting rejected by women and having the few girls he gets in bed end up laughing at him for his rather unfortunate facial features and very, very tiny penis, Craig finally happens to win over a woman. She’s a HB1, has three nipples scattered haphazardly over her body, is missing several teeth, and has the mustache of a 70’s pornstar.

Yes yes, I know I am being very generous here in the kind of woman Craig can attract. What can I say? I just like giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, Helga the ogress professes her undying love for Craig. But Craig, being the very very butthurt individual he is rejects her and makes her feel like shit. Helga weeps for her man crush, and takes out her anger on what few fedora wearing beta dudes she can attract. And thus the cycle begins anew.

The problem, and I mean, THE problem with humanity, is that rather than seeing life as the complicated mixture of beliefs, motivations, emotions, and unfortunate events that its is, people tend to distill things down into black and white terms.

There are the GOOD people and the BAD people.

The BAD people ONLY do things because they are EVIL EVIL EVIL.

They would NEVER do anything for any logical normal reason. No no, they are just the spawn of SATAN.

So we get the current hate and killings between cops and blacks. People COULD stop and think about things, to see how, yes, a black person raised in a shitty environment who is brutalized by a police officer is probably not going to like cops much. And a cop having to go through bad neighborhoods where he fears for his life and is frequently threatened with death is probably not going to be too fond of black people. They COULD realize that, yes, both sides have legitimate concerns and that we COULD bring both sides together to try to resolve things.

But it is MUCH easier to just go “Nope. Its those evil pigs. Kill em all.” or “Nah, its just those nigger thugs in the projects. Fuck those people.”

I see this same mindset WAAAYYY too often in the manosphere where guys go “WHAAAAH! Girls like sex?!?! They aren’t the perfect little angels who will be pristine virgin unicorns who are amazing in bed and cook for me and wuv me for ever and ever?!?! WHAAAH! Those evil evil SLUTS. Lets go pump and dump them because they are just a bunch of WHORES!!”

Yes things are fucked up for men now. Yes girls do lots of bad things. But so do men. Its not like women are having a blast all the time. Women get fucked over all the time by dudes, have their dreams shattered, hearts broken, and lives ruined. They are the most miserable they’ve been in decades. The FI dominated shithole we live in now fucks over men AND women.

Running around like a 5 year old exclaiming “Girls have cooties!! Put boogers in their hair! Burn their dollies!” certainly isn’t going to help lol.

Rollo, yes, I have. Agree with most of it. You just haven’t figured out yet that what the Sphere calls “Alpha” is really a FATTY who diets, pretends to like sports and has her “friends” coach her on what guys want. She’s really a 5 but thru her efforts … seems like an 8. Guy’s fucking love an 8 !!! Soon as the “faux Secret’s Model” gets a guy … she loses touch with the diet, gets fat, and forgets about sports because she has “got” her guy and then falls back into being “entitled”. And soon after … she gets dumped because that is not the girl the guy went for.

Just like the Beta … lifting, dressing well, acting “all Alpha” and practicing
“game” … acting like a “faux Alpha”. Soon as he gets a girl, he falls back to his natural state (beta) and gets dumped. Its the same thing. And the worst thing for men is the horrible truth: who can fake being alpha 24/7, every day for the rest of their life ? Answer: nobody. Given the divorce and custody laws in the US … you would have wished you’d never met the bitch.

The hug difference is women control the narrative … as you pointed out. They don’t have to pretend to be the “faux Secret’s girl” … they just lock men out of the market because women don’t NEED sex like men do. They wait it out and the narrative forces men to do what women want … IF THEY WANT TO GET LAID … which all men do, of course, because it biologically programmed in. That applies to the 80-90% of men who are considered beta’s; for the natural Alpha’s … the same rules don’t apply.

So yeah, you didn’t agree on my position on MGTOW and you seem to be coming around, you disagreed with my position on SB’s and seem to be coming around. I’m thinking … you’ll eventually realize that all the “become the best you can be” and “lift, lift, lift” is just a temporary solution as well. It may get you in the game, get you some pussy, maybe a girlfriend or even a wife, but it will not keep you there long term. And when it ends … you’ll be destroyed just like most other men. So the “faux Alpha” is not really a solution. The Solution is to withdraw enough men from the environment that it doesn’t work anymore and get the rules redrawn.

For me, now, I’m in the fashion business and look back very fondly on those years. I was really special. I knew it the night after I lost my virginity to David Bowie, when I went to see his concert at Long Beach Arena. It was still the Spiders from Mars tour, and, literally, the night that he became a star. But he had the spotlight shined on Lee Childers [Bowie’s publicist], Sable, and I, sitting in the audience. That’s when he thanked me for being there. Who cares what people said about me? I feel like I was very present. I saw the greatest music ever. I got to hang out with some of the most amazing, most beautiful, most charismatic men in the world. I went to concerts in limos with police escorts. Am I going to regret this? No.

And by the rules redrawn I mean a few things. Like abolish alimony. Abolish child support. Soon as children are awarded to the father and women have to pay for children they don’t get to see … that will change. And a huge one: a child is the property of the father … not the mother. Change that.

And Rape laws obviously. If a woman accuses a man of Rape … let HER name be published in the local news and who she accuses is held secret. If the case is not proven … THE WOMAN GETS THE SENTENCE THE MAN WOULD HAVE GOTTEN, HAD HE BEEN FOUND GUILTY. Yep, when a woman gets sentenced to 20 yrs plus LIFE AS SEX OFFENDER for making up a false allegation of rape … you’ll see that shit stop.

And domestic violence laws. Jesus, I had a recent conversation with a woman about that. She was bitching about how MEN CHEAT. I hit her with:

“well, you do realize that for every man cheating there is a woman involved. So women cheat just as much as men. But I have a solution to stop it all. To stop both men and women from cheating .. change the Domestic Violence laws. Make it legal for a man to beat his wife if she cheats. Have it go all the way to the supreme court and make it the law of the land. If a woman cheats … her man gets to beat the crap out of her, break her nose, knock out 3 teeth and shove a baseball bat up her vagina. And then take pics and post it to Facebook … look, my wife cheated and I taught her a lesson; AND HE IS NEVER CHARGED WITH A CRIME. When that’s made the law of the land … NO MEN WILL CHEAT ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY WON”T HAVE WOMEN TO CHEAT WITH.”

That shut her up and never heard back from her. As I said, women control the narrative … and don’t want to hear how its their fault. They always blame men … and we let them.

” But I have a solution to stop it all. To stop both men and women from cheating .. change the Domestic Violence laws. Make it legal for a man to beat his wife if she cheats. Have it go all the way to the supreme court and make it the law of the land. If a woman cheats … her man gets to beat the crap out of her, break her nose, knock out 3 teeth and shove a baseball bat up her vagina”

The problem is that society teaches (nay demands men believe) that women are far more noble and virtuous than they really are. It is understandable that a lot of men become bitter and disillusioned when the truth finally dawns on them and they realize they have been lied to all their lives.

Instead of mocking people with ‘oh you poor little pathetic betaboy bitch’, it would be a hell of a lot more constructive to say ‘you are in pain as your world of bullshit and delusions you have been fed since a child is disintegrating. Let’s help you through it. The other side of the fire is a world of Red Pill enlightenment’.

“Yes things are fucked up for men now. Yes girls do lots of bad things. But so do men. Its not like women are having a blast all the time. Women get fucked over all the time by dudes, have their dreams shattered, hearts broken, and lives ruined.”

The difference is that women tend to get fucked over by individual men due to their tendency to be attracted to men with dark personality traits. Men tend to get fucked over by individual women due to the wider culture, legal system etc. encouraging and facilitating such behavior and the greater in-group bias of women in generally covering for such behavior in other women. If you are going to promote false equivalences like this in order to promote sympathy for women, that is where you lose all credibility on a Red Pill forum.

“The FI dominated shithole we live in now fucks over men AND women.”

It is true that women are unhappy today in our feminine imperative dominated culture. But they are largely being hoisted by their own petard.

As I have progressed career wise, I come across men and due to the banter that I get involved with, I always come across a different point of view from them than the one that I have… There is no feeling of control left in these men, it seems to have completely disappeared. They feel as a servant to the whims of their current woman. If she cheats they then feel devastated and have no idea how to move on, other than do and hope that the next one will be better.

Men have disassociated with themselves as having any element of control over their women, because that is indeed called misogyny. However, when I describe the relationships I have with women, or my current LTR, their response is: “Why the hell is she staying with you? You seem to be treating her like shit.”

Shit in this situation means enforcing boundaries. Drawing my line in the sand as to what I will and would not accept and live by that code. The saddest thing is, that these women talk ill of these men who are and will forever be much more generous than I will.

Therefore it goes without question that men have internalised the myth that any say so that you have over a woman, is now misogyny. Any man trying to live his own life, with a woman and doesn’t submit his frame to hers is a misogynist. Yet, when you converse with the women I was involved with over the past 2 years, the response has always been that they felt that I was what they wanted, without knowing it. It seems to be that women have also slipped in that frame that control over your woman is misogyny and many of them will point it out to their girlfriends, yet when I maintain frame on them – it’s not.

That is because a woman will be rewarded internally by submitting to her man… It’s instinctive and yet it’s sad – when you think how far things have come. But it has been inevitable when the idea of a “protector” was thrown out and replaced by government programs.

In relation to what Rollo said about monogamy and polygyny being sexual strategies. It appears that it depends on the climate and the economic outlook of a certain era. When shit hits the fan, polygyny and extreme polygyny always becomes the norm – 17 women to 1 man at some point, yet social cohesion in times of peace is always achieved by monogamy.

I’ll find that video that I made some time ago and post it as a blog post to review the findings.

It is probably the case that historically monogamy emerged as a concession to lower status males during times when their contributions to society were needed. In polygamous societies, the majority of lower status males have little stake in society and thus little incentive to contribute. Monogamy is a kind of concession by women and alpha males to lower status males when the need arises.

The reason genuine monogamy is in decline and society is embracing de facto polygamy and open hypergamy is that during times of economic surplus, it is a lot easier to throw lower status males under the bus. If technology means more low skilled jobs can be done away with and more economic surpluses can be produced and redistributed to women through various means, there is no longer any need for lower status males. In effect, a smaller number of males can carry a larger number of females. Most women no longer need a beta chump to bring home a paycheck.

Of course, all this will change once there is a large scale economic collapse.

“Gynocentrism and the respondent efforts against it defeat this complementary cooperative need”

@Rollo,
If the respondent efforts against gynocentrism (including TRP, which I believe you support) defeat the complementary cooperative need (which I believe you also support), doesn’t that create kind of a controversy? Are you suggesting something other than TRP as a better response to gynocentrism? Or am I not getting this right?

And it isn’t all roses for girls. As soon as you hit puberty, you are at your peak. And then, before you know it, you hit the wall and psssh. All your great sexual experiences are behind you. You now have to get by on something other than your looks, but unlike, say, Steve in accounting, you can’t really get any better.

The average girl hits puberty around 13-14. Guys will start hitting on her when she’s 15-16. Her fertility and beauty peaks roughly at 21-22. It starts declining at roughly 27, and the decline accelerates after about 35.

She has almost two decades to find a mate before hitting the wall. Rougly fifteen years. Let’s not pretend that women don’t have it easy.

“It wasn’t enough to just separate male and female cooperation, fem-centrism has made men’s compromise so bad that they must be made to despise their sex altogether. Men had to be made not only to accept their downside compromise but to feel ashamed for even thinking not to.”

This ties together a lot of the concepts and ideas for me very nicely.

I’m not really buying the whole “some catastrophic event will force a reset of society and everything will become better”. No, shit will just get worse and worse. And not suddenly. More like frogs in boiling water.

Family law from a man’s perspective will not improve. Although fewer and fewer men will want to marry, there’ll always be enough fools signing up to this sentence. Family law will naturally move on from “marriage” to common law or de facto relationships; it’ll probably get to the point where you’re fucked the moment you move in and live with a woman, because she will be able claim she thought it would be “forever” after just a month. And given ageing Western populations, don’t think the government would prefer to financially maintain a woman when some man (or rather, patsy) can do so instead.

MGTOW is a rational response by many men, even if it is most often akin to surrender. But I don’t think there’ll be some magical strike where every man around the world just down shovels on a set date. No, it’ll be more organic. Did Japan’s “herbivores” come about overnight? Men tend to adapt in a rational way to their environment and circumstances.

One may scoff at the Roman Republic’s “bachelor tax”, but really, we already have that. I doubt most Western governments will abolish single mothers’ benefits any time soon, even when the shrinking working/tax-paying population can no longer afford it. They will sooner throw old aged pensioners and unemployed men under the bus. They might just bring in harsher child-support payments coupled with the outlawing of paternity testing. A mere accusation will probably become enough to prove paternity (apparently, the Russian model is already like this).

SD/SB is also a rational response. Actually, it’s the model that would make the most sense for most men with the means (it’s almost like renewing a lease on a new car every few years… instead of a 40 year mortgage on something that just keeps getting older and less reliable). However, if it becomes more prevalent, I can see governments getting involved to make sure men don’t have too much power in a buyers’ market. It’ll get regulated, with “fair” contractual terms and other minima. Your SB is flaking or not putting out as agreed? Too bad, you can’t just next her. You’ll probably be up for “unfair dismissal”, severance benefits etc. There might even be some sort of estoppel if she came to rely on you for accommodation, tuition etc.

The only time it will all end (badly) is when non-Western countries which aren’t infected with feminism overrun Western nations through mass immigration or invasion. But before you get all excited by the prospect of being able to get multiple wives under your absolute control, what makes you think anything other than a fugly will be made available to you, and not a native of the occupying power?

The “decline” may be made a bit more comfortable with VR porn and sexbots, but that can work both ways. AI and robotics may indeed make the need for men in many jobs and professions completely redundant. Oddly enough, only the men with means will be able to afford the new sexual surrogate technologies, but they probably won’t have a need for it.

A child doesn’t write all over the walls with permanent marker to go “Haha. Take THAT parents.” The kid goes “Oooh. I love to draw. I love fuzzy bunnies. So I am going to draw fuzzy bunnies ALL OVER THE WALL. Yay fuzzy bunnies.”

It’s normal for children and teenagers to do things solely to spite their parents, elders, teachers. They do that all the time.

I get what you were trying to say in your post and believe it to be true to an extent but there is a definite darkness to female nature that is undeniable IMO (just get into a relationship with a BPD woman or grow up with a stepmother or observe your female siblings or coworkers, etc., etc.). There is just NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. To be fair though, I think it comes out THE MOST on men that they perceive as being or acting “weak” and/or “beta” in some way or instance. I wonder if it’s some kind of automatic hindbrain thing with women where they perceive displays of honor, honesty and decency as a weakness found in weak men. Maybe from a woman’s perspective, honor and decency and truthfulness as traits observed in a particular man are often associated with other traits like having a weak mental frame. In her mind this translates to cowardice and being gullible and not being able to adequately protect and provide for her, making her resent him for being/acting “weak”. Women being natural Machiavellians are very cynical creatures who are naturally adept at putting on fake fronts and wearing masks and manipulating and deceiving others by using tactics like plausible deniability and withholding of information and so on and so forth. I do believe that learning how to think like a woman thinks and understanding female nature can definitely help a man develop a stronger mental frame by re-wiring his brain. I know this is obvious and redundant to most readers on this site as well as Illimitable Men’s site but I found the exchange b/t Holiday and Craig to be interesting – both making some valid points. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle on that.

I’m not really buying the whole “some catastrophic event will force a reset of society and everything will become better”. No, shit will just get worse and worse. And not suddenly. More like frogs in boiling water.

There are historical precedents for catastrophic resets. Consider the Bronze Age Collapse, or the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, when minting, for example, has disappeared all over present-day Western Europe for centuries, the method for producing concrete was forgotten for more than a millennium, and cities were depopulated because agricultural production went into disarray and urban populations couldn’t be fed anymore. That’s a very serious dislocation.

Imagine a scenario where, say, contraceptives become too expensive for the average woman due to some economic crisis. Or female office workers get laid off en masse. That’d cause massive change in the mating market.

Having said that, that doesn’t mean everything automatically becomes better, and I don’t disagree with your basic argument.

The CDC tells us about the most common cause of PID (chlamydia), which can cause infertility in women (120k new cases per year in the US)…

Most people who have chlamydia have no symptoms. If you do have symptoms, they may not appear until several weeks after you have sex with an infected partner. Even when chlamydia causes no symptoms, it can damage your reproductive system.

tl;dr most women who have a disease which can make them infertile show no symptoms

If you are sexually active, you can do the following things to lower your chances of getting PID:
•Being in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and has negative STD test results;
•Using latex condoms the right way every time you have sex.

Girls are very aware of their own sexual strategies and how they categorize guys they meet.

One of my plates describes guys in one of her special interest classes as “non sexual” and “the teacher’s pet”. Her very blunt description is spot on when I met the guy and he was desperately trying to please every girl in the room but was regarded as “the mascot”.

A 22 year old HB9 I was gaming 7 months back said she divided guys into “lover” and “boyfriend/husband”. She said a boyfriend could also be a lover but was very clear. She didn’t use lover/provider but that was her meaning.

Now that I have adopted the Red Pill I can see girls totally get Red Pill/Blue Pill thinking without knowing that it’s even a “thing”.

Too many Blue Pill guys are limited by their own beliefs. They don’t think they get do any better so they don’t even try. They hope to meet someone but feel frustrated it never pans out.

When I start gaming a hot girl and sexualizing the interaction the girl immediately starts shit-testing.

I gamed a girl at a party and the mingled she sat near me and a friend of mine tried his “luck” with her. He started by asking her what she did and got her talking about financial planning models and economics.

She was very eager to talk about that.

With me I’m all about “Hey trouble-maker, behave!” to which she replies: “I can’t behave around you…”

These teasing interactions often lead guys to white knight saying things like “he’s a player” etc. Interestingly that kind of thing has no effect on a girl’s decision to continue the interaction. If she doesn’t i’m now in abundance mode so I just move on or friend her. Then the teasing and sexualizing stops. I’ve done this a few times only to have the girl start trying to get it back to where it was.

Family law will naturally move on from “marriage” to common law or de facto relationships; it’ll probably get to the point where you’re fucked the moment you move in and live with a woman, because she will be able claim she thought it would be “forever” after just a month. And given ageing Western populations, don’t think the government would prefer to financially maintain a woman when some man (or rather, patsy) can do so instead.

I can definitely see that happening. Something like this is already rule of the land in British Columbia:

“An unmarried couple who have lived together for at least two years are spouses who are eligible to ask for spousal support and orders about the division of property and debt.”

I don’t know if it is an innate darkness to female nature or if it just natural survival instincts that have become unbalanced and pathological in time.

Women have evolved to be more manipulative and dishonest than men for the simple fact that, in evolutionary terms, they needed something to compensate for being physically weaker and more vulnerable. If you go back to times where life was generally nasty, brutish and short, if you had the misfortune of being born as a member of the physically weaker sex in such an environment then it is more than understandable that you would have to hone every other weapon at your disposal for your own survival. Yet fast forward to today’s society. Women are by and large safer and more secure than ever. They no longer need such superior skills of deceit and manipulation to survive. In such an environment, women’s superior social skills and manipulation become pathologically abusive and unbalanced, a weapon to gain ever more advantages over men. (What society really needs now is a good economic collapse and an increase in violent crime. Thankfully our global overlords are likely to deliver it).

I don’t believe women in general are evil. But there is a certain disorder that is common to most of them. Thing is, most women regard men as a resource or beasts of burden that should exist for no other purpose than to serve their needs. Are they evil for thinking like that? No more evil than we men are for looking upon actual livestock in the same way. To a large extent it is just the way the universe and the system is set up. Certain organisms can only survive by preying on the energy of others. Women are predators who can only survive by leeching the energy of unsuspecting males. It is nothing personal. They are just trying to survive. But we shouldn’t blame a few men who manage to escape from their holding pens.

They might just bring in harsher child-support payments coupled with the outlawing of paternity testing. A mere accusation will probably become enough to prove paternity (apparently, the Russian model is already like this).

In France and Germany, paternity testing is only permitted with the written consent of the mother, or so I’ve heard.

“So we come to an impasse then. It’s likely it will require a traumatic social event to reset or redefine the terms of our present social contract to ever make monogamy a worthwhile compromise for men again. We can also contrast this ‘raw deal’ compromise against the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. It’s easy to think women simply have no need of men when their long-term security is virtually assured today, but fem-centrism goes beyond just separating the sexes by need. It wasn’t enough to just separate male and female cooperation, fem-centrism has made men’s compromise so bad that they must be made to despise their sex altogether. Men had to be made not only to accept their downside compromise but to feel ashamed for even thinking not to.”

The traumatic social event is well under way,what is required is the truth.

We humans all of us even the mensa upper 2% are really educated cave men with smart phones,subject to instinctive primal nature.Our ability to reason,think things through to the final outcome,quells the base instinct,although it is still there just under the surface.Making each of us male and female guilty of thought crime under modern pretence.

Our modern civilization,protects the weak and injured,to the very point of promoting a victim mentality,even when there is no victim present.People as a result have become so attached to their own victim status it has become their identity and to confront this victimhood with reality is a frontal assault to their person.

In reality life has been and always will be a lot of hard work,no generation has or ever will have it easier then another.There are just different challenges or opportunities to overcome or take advantage of.
The real need is for discernment of truth,the ability for critical thinking and the individuals taking the right course of action in any situation.

After absorbing this red pill and crumbling the walls in my mind, overcoming the belief that even a wife isn’t on my team and that a man I am the only support I can expect, I decided to try out some of the theory:

Yeah, you want this, but I want a blow job. Somewhat surprised that wifey didn’t flinch at trading sex…. another piece confirmed.

Yeah, you want x but I know I can’t make a deal with you where you get the benefits up front and pay off sometime later… no explosions of don’t you trust me? Just, like he’s getting it.

The thing is that most women are energy vampires by nature. Hence the term ‘vamp’, which comes from vampire. They can only survive by consuming surplus male energy. Feminism is a vast societal form of this energy vampirism. This is one of those concepts which once you understand, you think ‘aha. Now much of life makes sense’.

This partly explains the paradox that women often display a greater level of ingroup bias and cooperation than men do, and yet at the same time are often in bitter conflict with each other. For example, conflict between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law or between sisters-in-law is legion. That is because in those situations where women are basically competing over a fixed supply of male energy, they must fight with each other. Yet in other circumstances in wider society they can increase the amount of male energy to be exploited by cooperating, and so they do. It is in the nature of a predator that they have to fight with each other over the prey when its supply is relatively fixed or in short supply. Yet the predators have more incentive to cooperate when they can increase the amount of prey.

It is easy to become angry and bitter towards women when you have to deal with their endless games, moods, manipulations and dishonesty. But you have to realize that women ultimately need to do this in order to survive. It is really nothing personal. By and large women don’t want to harm men merely for the sake of it. They just need to drain your energy to survive. You are a tasty morsel to them.

This energy vampirism largely explains why women have a need to beta-ize their men. Why, for example, you have mothers that feel the need to turn their sons into pathetic, simpering, useless mommies boys that no woman would have the slightest interest in. That way they are assured of an uninterrupted supply of energy that they can have for themselves, without the risk of it being taken by another woman.

One of the best things you can ever do in terms of building confidence with women is to put as much distance as possible between yourself and mothers, sisters and other close female relations. For me it was truly miraculous how much more cocky and assured I became around women.

I wonder if this is kind of starting to happen. Microsoft held a massive culling about 2-3 years ago of 13,000. I’m from the area and wondered at the time if they had to do that in order to simply disguise the fact that they needed to lay off about 4 or 5 thousand human resource donut-eaters who make 95K a year making power point presentations on why rape is wrong or something. In order to lay off that many donut-eaters they had to cull at least twice as many males in order to disguise it. Just my theory.

“Let’s not pretend that women don’t have it easy.”

THANK YOU. Here in Rollo-land and select manosphere sites, it’s easy to get the impression that all of us males here are switched-on alphas-in-training. It’s so far from being the case out in the world. My 38 year old buddy who is lean with a full head of hair, a mcmansion in a very nice NW neighborhood and a fat upcoming pension got hitched with a ridiculously obese, slot machine addicted 49 year old. He’s a teacher who inherited some nice dough already. Another friend who works for the state as some kind of accountant (and has been steadily employed and minimalistic for 20 years with no kids) went out and got himself a pill-addicted, obese, semi-handicapped woman about 10 years older than him. I’m not embellishing this. These aren’t stupid, weak men. Well, a little bit stupid but not in the employment sense. Neither had been abroad before hitching up with their tubs of lard. A woman who can stay within ten pounds of her high school weight (if she wasn’t obese in high school) will still have all kinds of fun with monied, middle-aged men until she’s 58 years old. It’s ridiculous when a manospherian tries to pull a neener-neener on women, like, “Wait till you’re 34 cunt. You’ll be alone with cats!” Not if she keeps herself south of a buck sixty

@Fred Flange,

Nice post throughout. Damned poetic.

“Since we’re going to be shamed no matter what we do, we might as well do what we like.” Words to live by.

@Hank Holliday,

I don’t know if it was intentional or not but you did a hell of a job in exemplifying exactly how women have no accountability at all. So they can wreck the lives of several people (their family) by divorcing on a whim and they’re no more to blame than a 4 month old cocker spaniel laying a steamer in the living room. You seem to be excusing them. “That’s just who they are” (paraphrased). That’s classic chicken or egg stuff there. Are women cunts because they’re cunts or because they are never called out for being cunts? Which came first? The cunt or the culturally entrenched excuses for their cunthood?

Spot on – and i agree with you. It’s just the way we (they) evolved. The superior “alphas” just seem to get that truth easier then the “betas” with the “beta” mindset probably from having red pill “alpha” fathers to raise and teach them about female nature. I find Mr. Jones from the Men’s Resource Organization on You Tube to be an interesting character. He is not homosexual but appears to have the natural genetic solipsistic mental wiring of a woman or that of a homosexual male and therefore is one of those rare HETEROSEXUAL males who just naturally “gets it” due to his mental female wiring. I’m not a big fan of his BTW because my bullshit detector goes off too much when I listen to him but find him interesting nevertheless. At first I thought he was an example of a dark triad personality, but now believe he is an example of a man who was born with this solipsistic female wiring that was amplified by having a red pill parental upbringing, IMO this female mental wiring is similar but not necessarily identical to that found in the cluster-B spectrum of personality disorders.

A fool there was and he made his prayer
(Even as you or I!)
To a rag and a bone and a hank of hair,
(We called her the woman who did not care),
But the fool he called her his lady fair–
(Even as you or I!)

Oh, the years we waste and the tears we waste,
And the work of our head and hand
Belong to the woman who did not know
(And now we know that she never could know)
And did not understand!

A fool there was and his goods he spent,
(Even as you or I!)
Honour and faith and a sure intent
(And it wasn’t the least what the lady meant),
But a fool must follow his natural bent
(Even as you or I!)

Oh, the toil we lost and the spoil we lost
And the excellent things we planned
Belong to the woman who didn’t know why
(And now we know that she never knew why)
And did not understand!

The fool was stripped to his foolish hide,
(Even as you or I!)
Which she might have seen when she threw him aside–
(But it isn’t on record the lady tried)
So some of him lived but the most of him died–
(Even as you or I!)

And it isn’t the shame and it isn’t the blame
That stings like a white-hot brand–
It’s coming to know that she never knew why
(Seeing, at last, she could never know why)
And never could understand!

If there’s a such a collapse, our bluepill biased society means men will bear the brunt of the losses: just like they did in the last recession. Bluepill managers and female HR departments will ensure women are retained over men even if it means the destruction of the company.
So ,more betas will be laid off, which in turn means more divorced men as the improvised Betabux’s get left by their women seeking new providers.

This means things will get worse , not better.Instead of women submitting out of an economic need , it will be men playing gladiator to win over one woman’s affections. The bluepillers will kill each other if it means now-expensive female attention is gained in the bargain- it already happens in urban ghettos, white trash trailer parks in the holler , Latino barrios etc.

In returning to Rollos original point, I’d go far enough to say both genders will “cease and desist” at a certain economic level.

Middle class women won’t be inclined to budge on their sexual strategy at all, not when CEOs and junior execs are chasing them for dates online in their early 20s. A conventional date makes little sense for a hot woman today, not when playing sugar baby pays more for the same or less effort sexually. If a woman’s gonna fuck a bluepill , she may as well fuck the highest bidder. Ordinary bluepill men in middle class jobs can aspire at best to being an orbiter until the day he gets rich -or dies.

What about Game ?Still a very effective method given the alternatives (nada) and will in fact get easier with time (because the competition is getting lamer with each generation) , but these channels of knowledge are like Christian theology in Iran. Dissemination of this data in large enough scale to make a lasting change is unlikely, and even so Game won’t do jack for you in child support court.

Getting into a girls pants is easy. Getting into her pants without losing your freedom,money, and future in the process is hard. I’ve been gaming over a decade, for most of which time I was a broke dude. A child support court would have laughed at an attempt to collect from my financial carcass as a teenager and college student.

Now that I’ve got a career, a couple of cars, and money in the bank gaming takes on a whole new meaning. Now I’m a high value target for the matriarchy. Now it’s not about just sex.
I’ve got to get laid with the additional requirement of not losing my stuff in the process. And that gets very tough when a woman can just tag a man with a support order even if he didn’t knock her up. One torn condom or legal summons means my future is fucked. A Child Support order ,factoring in time value of money means hundreds of thousands of dollars is lost potentially from just one F-close.

Now I see why powerful men use escorts and GFEs. The money buys you peace of mind, because an escort won’t drag you into court or deliberately get knocked up because she thinks youd be a “great dad”. Here’s where the male side of the “cease and desist” angle comes in.

Why should an accomplished man bother with dating and even game (given the legal risks) when a local escort or a plane ride to Amsterdam’s Red Light District gets him both sex and peace of mind?
Get to a certain level of SMV and financial success as a man, and your practical alternatives will be either getting legally taxed by an opportunistic chick ; or noping out of the conventional dating scene if you want to stay out of a courtroom .

Thanks. The biggest problem is that few men really understand female psychology. In relation to homosexual males, it is not hard to see why a lot of women are attracted to homosexual men. Homosexual men typically have the same solipsism and self-centredness of women, but without the slightest sexual interest in women (and thus her pussy has no power over him). What’s not to love about that if you are a woman? I have noticed also that it is usually the women who are the biggest cunts that go ga-ga over the most obviously faggoty males.

What you say in relation to the inner darkness of women rings true to an extent. The thing is that many women can be superficially pleasant when the need arises or it suits. But most people that I have known who are just straightforwardly decent and kind people tend to be men.

As I’ve grown older and matured in my beliefs I see a lot of duality in things. The infinite versus the finite, light versus dark, Yin versus Yang, opportunistic conditional love versus unconditional idealistic love and so on and so forth. It only makes sense to me that there would be a polarity of light and dark between male and female natures. The universe seeks a balance. Does that mean that individual women are evil and individual men are good? I would say of course not – just there natures on Matatan’s bell curve of traits.

Not long after my night with Bowie, I got a call from some guy saying he was Jimmy Page. I knew it was a prank phone call. Led Zeppelin was the biggest rock band in the world. Why would Jimmy be calling me at home? But then, a couple of weeks later, Sable and I were at Iggy’s place where we found out that Led Zeppelin was staying at the Hyatt House. They had the entire ninth floor. On the way over, Sable said to me, “You keep your hands off Jimmy. If you touch him, I will shoot you. He’s mine.” I told her that it was okay. I wanted nothing to do with him.

So we got to the Hyatt. Everybody was hanging out at the pool, throwing each other in, and Jimmy walked up to me. He said, “Are you Lori? I’m Jimmy. I told you I would be with you.” It was him on the phone! I couldn’t believe it. At that point, though, especially after the Bowie incident, I was truly afraid that Sable would beat me up, kill me, crucify me, 86 me out of Hollywood. She was the queen of the groupies. You did not fuck with Sable Starr.

That night we all wound up at the Rainbow, where I got approached by Led Zeppelin’s manager Peter Grant. He was like 700 pounds and scary as hell. He said, “You’re coming with me, young lady.” I wound up in a limo and didn’t know where I was going. But it was to the Hyatt. I felt like I was being kidnapped. I got taken into a room and there was Jimmy Page. He wore a wide-brimmed hat and held a cane. It was perfect. He mesmerized me. I fell in love instantly.

Zeppelin was starting its tour for Houses of the Holy and Jimmy stationed himself in LA. The band had a private jet, called the Starship, and he flew back and forth from the gigs. But I was underage and couldn’t travel with him. So I would stay in the room and wait for Jimmy. At that point, I was 15 and totally in love with this man. I put him on a pedestal. It became so serious that Jimmy asked my mom for permission to be with me.

THRILLIST: Wait — he asked your mom? Did he ever seem at all nervous about having sex with a minor?

Looking back, he had to be afraid of getting sued for being with such a young girl, so maybe he thought it would be better if he cleared it with my mother and told her he was in love with me. And I do think he was in love with me. He bought me beautiful maxi dresses to wear and wouldn’t let me do drugs or anything.

THRILLIST: What did your mother make of him?

She liked him. She used to be an agent and was savvy to show business. She knew that I was dating the biggest rock star in the world. She used to say, “My daughter is like Priscilla [Presley].” I was Jimmy’s little angel.

We really didn’t do much besides go to parties in LA; other than that, Jimmy never took me anywhere amazing. We just sequestered ourselves in the hotel room. Then there was an incident at the Drake Hotel in Manhattan. The band was staying there while doing some shows at Madison Square Garden. They had $200,000 stolen from the Drake’s safety deposit box. The FBI thought it could have been an inside job. Ultimately, when the band came back to LA, Peter Grant told me that I had to get out of the hotel or else Jimmy might go to fucking jail. The FBI was all over them.

But that blew over and Jimmy and I stayed together. When he was in England, he would call me every day. I hung out with Sable and Queenie and went to the clubs and waited for him. I stayed loyal. My whole life was about waiting for Jimmy. I tried going to high school, but I couldn’t concentrate. And after Jimmy Page and David Bowie, what was I going to do with a North Hollywood boy? I didn’t go to high school prom because I was too busy living the Hollywood prom.

Interesting concept. I did the 4F thing when I was younger. Although it was a lot of fun, I’m not sure that I can say that I was happy. I was happy when I was in a LTR, but that changed after she did. At this point I’d probably enjoy taking the 4F route again,

I keep finding myself falling for women’s deceptions and doing my own backsliding into The Blue Pill.

Case 1: 22 y.o. married woman I know who put on a sweet, innocent face goes dancing solo, showing lots of midriff, husband working at night, and she gets in my grill while we are dancing and chatting…never saw her showing much skin at a country bar where we met…I realize now that she was looking for BB prospects, so she dressed conservatively.

Case 2: I misread signals in a group of girls where I was cockblocked by one…I assumed that she was a “good” girl, but what was really going on was that she was surprised by her friend’s interest and wanted some time to think about me…I’m now on her Approved list, it seems. Really, these girls are “nice” girls, but not “good” girls. (Good girls get taken home early. Nice girls get the dick, but they are very selective.)

I need to get quicker at figuring out this stuff the night when it happens instead of by Monday morning quarterbacking.

An alpha is not necessarily fucked up in he head either. Most alphas don’t even realize it, but they somehow know what the girls want and they dish it out freely. And it is not just about the sex. The girls want to take a ride with him. Girls will have a crush on a guy even in elementary school before she even knows what sex is. There is something about that boy that makes the girls drawn to him. A girl sees him go and she walks ahead of him dropping him love notes and candy! True story. The boy grows up ploughing through pussy non stop…

A guy drives into an open-air clubbing zone, walks to the counter, grabs a beer and starts chatting up a bouncer and a waitress at the entrance. The waitress leans in. A drunk college girl joins them and starts drawing him in. She succeeds and before he knows it he is bundling her into his car. She jokingly complains that he has hijacked her, but she is obviously enjoying it. A lot. Only after more than 10 minutes of serious kino does the real boyfriend show up and he seems to be begging to have his girl back. Hehehehe…

And hey, before you go off at a tangent…this guy is not a loser. He is actually a successful professional.

The concept of alpha is not easy to define, but one can safely say it is not a fatty who exercises. But when you run into alpha, you know it. Looks have something to do with it, but not much.

“MGTOW/PUA/ The Red Pill, are all the deductive responses to this normalization, but also, they’re a response to the proposition of the compromise that the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies presents to men in today’s sexual marketplace. In all of these ‘movements’ the fundamental, central truth is that they all run counter to the presumption that men”

So he is dissing the PUAs because they decide to tone their alpha up and help other men to do the same? It is the choice of every alpha to keep the alpha up or to tone it down (or turn it off altogether). If an alpha willingly tones down his alpha, that is his funeral. Minimal sympathies. I believe PUAs are mostly trying to help alphas who have unwittingly been tricked into toning their alpha down or into turning it off.

So, just to offer some closure on my comments in the previous article and to not come off as a suave PUA (which I’m not) – A followup to previous description of my supper date which was preceded with 2 hours of great sex (well, for me anyways) was accurate.

Funny thing though, was 2 days later I was ghosted and I finally was told I was dumped for being too old (57 she’s 39). My online dating profile puts me at 44 just to get by the filters. I tell my dates my true age on the first date – I don’t think I’ll be doing that again. From now on my age is my business and no one else’s.

I’m realizing that digesting the Red Pill takes time and effort. This dumping has affected me much more than it should have. I caught some feelz for the old broad. I’m still playing by the old set of books expecting to fall in love happily ever after Disney BS. This is something to work on. I’m not sure I know how since I don’t get out much. Maybe MGTOW is the only realistic solution for someone my age.

So, to all you aspiring PUAs poster here – keep up the good work and beware those feelz. Pump and dump seems to be the best strategy.

The impasse gets more severe as you focus on younger demographics. For all the caterwauling about the Frat Boy Louts and Lad Culture, today’s college and high school men are now the Soft Boyss. They have truly absorbed the Open Hypergamy Blue Pill praxeology as a way of life. The Sandbergians do not comprehend how fully they have achieved what is likely to be a long-lasting victory.

Western societies will soon reach a point where all men who had any direct knowledge and experience of pre-feminist social norms are all dead. The boys currently growing up don’t even know anyone who has seen the pre-feminist world with his own eyes. To them, what we call the “patriarchy” is forgotten, unknown past without relevance. They cannot even conceive of a society that isn’t 100% feminist, because they haven’t known anything else.

“A while back, it was thought that if a man was alpha, strong frame, game, fit, 12 levels of dread, and a boatload of other criteria, then he could successfully reproduce and raise his kids.

The current thinking is women are going to be women, which is more realistic but results in a quandary on any strategy for having and raising kids.”

Your first sentence was the old set of books. Men didn’t know any better so they were working on survival and replication. Successfully reproducing and raising kids included mate selection and pair bonding. Darwins natural selection.

Your second sentence reflects a new world disorder after the feminist revolution, television in the seventies, the sexual revolution and female birth control.

Damn right it is a quandary for having and raising kids. Pair bonding was always better for raising kids. So with the death knell of “easy” monogamy, men’s sexual strategy can still be realized by Game, but his parenting and raising of progeny is going to be a tough haul.

The Mating Mind
How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature
By GEOFFREY MILLER

…our minds evolved not just as survival machines, but as courtship machines. Every one of our ancestors managed not just to live for a while, but to convince at least one sexual partner to have enough sex to produce offspring. Those proto-humans that did not attract sexual interest did not become our ancestors, no matter how good they were at surviving. Darwin realized this, and argued that evolution is driven not just by natural selection for survival, but by an equally important process that he called sexual selection through mate choice. Following his insight, I shall argue that the most distinctive aspects of our minds evolved largely through the sexual choices our ancestors made.

….sexual selection is unusually fast, powerful, intelligent, and unpredictable. (Heh, as told by YaReally in the infield over the last six years)This makes it a good candidate for explaining any adaptation that is highly developed in one species but not in other closely related species that share a similar environment.

In this book I shall use the terms “natural selection” and “sexual selection” as Darwin did: natural selection arising through competition for survival, and sexual selection arising through competition for reproduction. I am perfectly aware that this is not the way professional biologists currently use these terms. But I think it is more important, especially for non-biologist readers, to appreciate that selection for survival and selection for attracting sexual partners are distinct processes that tend to produce quite different kinds of biological traits. Terms should be the servants of theories, not the masters. By reviving Darwin’s distinction between natural selection for survival and sexual selection for reproduction, we can talk more easily about their differences.

@XD

Rollo: “So we come to an impasse then. It’s likely it will require a traumatic social event to reset or redefine the terms of our present social contract to ever make monogamy a worthwhile compromise for men again.”

XD: “I’d think twice about wishing for an economic collapse.”

You or (someone above your comment) are missing a distinction here. Rollo is not surmizing that a traumatic social event (he didn’t mean economic collapse) is needed to further men’s sexual strategy. Or any Apocalypse. He was specifically saying that monogamy won’t ever be a “deal” for a man unless this happens.

Women’s sexual selection and a mans worthiness of being selected will always be a thing. And go on in a way that can’t be predicted. And yes a man’s sexual strategy will have to adapt.

No matter what happens there will be sexual selection by females under open hypergamy. It get’s back to Rollo’s essay “As Good as it Gets”. At best serial monogamy was the thesis there.

There is a difference in Darwin’s Natural Selection and his Sexual Selection.

Natural selection refers to a species being able to survive its environment and enlarge its population in its environment. Sexual Selection refers to choosing what is in the eyes of the selector, metaphorically good genes. Sexual selection is prone to Runaway Sexual Selection as is such in male peacocks.

Further from the Geoffrey Miller book:

One difference is that sexual selection through mate choice can be much more intelligent than natural selection. I mean this quite literally. Natural selection takes place as a result of challenges set by an animal’s physical habitat and biological niche. The habitat includes the factors that matter to farmers: sunlight, wind, heat, rain, and land quality. The niche includes predators and prey, parasites and germs, and competitors from one’s own species. Natural selection is just something that happens as a side-effect of these factors influencing an organism’s survival chances. The habitat is inanimate and doesn’t care about those it affects. Biological competitors just care about making their own livings. None of these selectors cares whether it imposes evolutionary selection pressures that are consistent, directional, efficient, or creative. The natural selection resulting from such selectors just happens, willy-nilly.

Sexual selection is quite different, because animals often have very strong interests in acting as efficient agents of sexual selection. The genetic quality of an animal’s sexual partner determines, on average, half the genetic quality of their offspring. (Most animals inherit half their genes from mother and half from father.) As we shall see, one of the main reasons why mate choice evolves is to help animals choose sexual partners who carry good genes. Sexual selection is the professional at sifting between genes. By comparison, natural selection is a rank amateur. The evolutionary pressures that result from mate choice can therefore be much more consistent, accurate, efficient, and creative than natural selection pressures.

As a result of these incentives for sexual choice, many animals are sexually discriminating. They accept some suitors and reject others. They apply their faculties of perception, cognition, memory’ and judgment to pick the best sexual partners they can. In particular, they go for any features of potential mates that signal their fitness and fertility.

In fact, sexual selection in our species is as bright as we are. Every time we choose one suitor over another, we act as an agent of sexual selection. Almost anything that we can notice about a person is something our ancestors might have noticed too, and might have favored in their sexual choices. For example, some of us fall in love with people for their quick wits and generous spirits, and we wonder how these traits could have evolved. Sexual choice theory suggests that the answer is right in front of us. These traits are sexually attractive, and perhaps simpler forms of them have been attractive for hundreds of thousands of years. Over many generations, those with quicker wits and more generous spirits may have attracted more sexual partners, or higher-quality partners. The result was that wits became quicker and spirits more generous.

Of course, sexual selection through mate choice cannot favor what its agents cannot perceive. If animals cannot see the shapes of one another’s heart ventricles, then heart ventricles cannot be directly shaped by sexual selection—vivisection is not a practical method for choosing a sexual partner. A major theme of this book is that before language evolved, our ancestors could not easily perceive one another’s thoughts, but once language had arrived, thought itself became subject to sexual selection. Through language, and other new forms of expression such as art and music, our ancestors could act more like psychologists—in addition to acting like beauty contest judges—when choosing mates. During human evolution, sexual selection seems to have shifted its primary target from body to mind.

This book argues that we were neither created by an omniscient deity, nor did we evolve by blind, dumb natural selection. Rather, our evolution was shaped by beings intermediate in intelligence: our own ancestors, choosing their sexual partners as sensibly as they could. We have inherited both their sexual tastes for warm, witty, creative, intelligent, generous companions, and some of these traits that they preferred. We are the outcome of their million-year-long genetic engineering experiment in which their sexual choices did the genetic screening.

And that concludes this advertisement for: Times change. Go out and master Game. Quickly, before things change again. .

My problem is that my autism kicks in when a girl gives an unexpected signal and I get cornfuzed, lol. So, I figure it out the next day. I have to figure out some way to focus when a girl gives an unexpected signal…or maybe just expect all girls to give IOIs when I’m around. Girls are masters of deception, especially at appearing to be “good girls”. Part of what I need to do is not be taken in by girls’ deception and that should help me avoid confusion.

Yeah, both girls in the group were giving IOIs. These girls are loyal to each other…have been friends for years and are very supportive of one another and will step back if another in their group likes a man…of course, that doesn’t mean that they will stop giving IOIs to that man because it’s a reflex.

“Girls will have a crush on a guy even in elementary school before she even knows what sex is. There is something about that boy that makes the girls drawn to him.”

agree.

I had my first girlfriend in fifth grade. I remember going to my grandparents house for thanksgiving dinner and my mom outing me and my entire family making fun of me.

our first date was hilarious. I went to her house. We hung around outside, just walking around. neither of us knew what to do but we both wanted to be there.

the next year we were in different classes. she was dumb as a fence post, so I never had a single class with her over the following five years and never spoke a word to her.

then, five years after our first date I took her virginity. and never once did she say something stupid like, “why didn’t you wait for me?” or “this was meant to be”. it wasn’t like that at all. she was as hypergamous as they come, with serious orbiters and tons of options. but she knew what she wanted in fifth grade and she got it. so, how the fuck did she know?

Ya would say my subcomms were solid. lol. how does a guy have good subcomms before he’s blown his first load? being the last one standing in bombartment? lol.

my vote, when it comes to the young ones, is for the magical woowoo sense. not everything can be explained. and that’s ok.

as this relates to the OP, I was a fucking chump. I was definitely her boyfriend, and while she was a fine piece of ass, I gave up a ton of chances to pursue other poon. good poon. maybe not as hot as her, but looking back now, so fucking what. they were all young and tight and wet and that’s more than enough.

I see the same thing happening these days. all the finest girls have boyfriends. these guys get the best pussy, but their options are limited due to social bullshit. everyone knows who’s hanging out with who and it’s pretty hard to get away with late night bangs without everyone finding out as girls that age have big fucking mouths.

this may be due to the limited social environment of high school, the fact that a lot of these girls want to lose their virginity to a “boyfriend” or the lack of privacy and “independence” that college and later years afford.

young guys should know: lie, make fake “commitments” to get the pussy, fuck every hot thing you can, fuck her friends, fuck her sister, fuck her mom, fuck your friends girlfriends and never ever make the mistake I did in wasting a year fucking one good piece of pussy over many and not fucking your friends hot girlfriends out of some misplaced sense of “honor” because you’re not even going to see those guys a few years later, but those awesome young hot notches are forever. and once you get to college, go fucking crazy and fuck everything that moves. the world is yours.

read Ya, run game, never cohabitate and never compromise because as Rollo points out again in this post, it’s either your way or hers. there’s no in between.

“A while back, it was thought that if a man was alpha, strong frame, game, fit, 12 levels of dread, and a boatload of other criteria” … was the old set of books

Red Pill terms are not that old, and Blue Pill Prof’s book is recent. My question is not about what occurred a decade ago, but if the Red Pill has given up on fatherhood. In particular what are you going to tell your son, find a unicorn?